Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
@OSUBucknado We got a bunch of people continuously spreading misinformation online, believing bullshit over facts, happy to trust every word from some stranger on the internet, over actual experts…the hostility is pretty necessary, this spiral of misinformation and pseudoscience needs to stop. Seriously, what has happened to society, that many will educate themselves through memes and YouTube videos, then call that research? 🤷♂️ Did the education system just fail horribly in western culture? Right this very second, there are millions of people successfully navigating the planet, using a system of navigation built on the knowledge that Earth is spherical…you think they’d be able to do their jobs at all, if didn’t actually know the true shape of the Earth? 🤷♂️
I know a lot of trust has eroded for government and systems of authority, but has it really gotten so bad that you’re ready to believe anything the crack pots of the world are saying, without question? You think I enjoy sharing information that should be common knowledge? No…it terrifies me how ignorant the world has become lately. We’re supposed to live in the information age…but it’s more like the misinformation age now, where fear, distrust and paranoia rule, where people are happy to believe anything, so long as the government didn’t say it.
The age of the crack pots we used to all laugh at…great, can’t wait to see how that plays out…what are they credited for inventing or accomplishing again?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"People at the beginning of the world did know the world was flat. Helio theory came along later. Round earth is newer."
Yes, everybody knows that...but just because something is older, does not mean it is correct. All that time and Flat Earth still hasn't have a working map or model...how much more time do they need? The people of old were wrong...it's pretty simple.
"How does a ane land ina place if the world is spinning?"
Conservation of momentum and relative motion, the science of motion...learn some physics.
" Earthquakes make sense on a flat earth."
How? What is causing the plates to shift? Are you a seismologist? How much do you actually know about the science of seismology? Did you know that every time an Earthquake hits (which is hundreds of times a day around the Earth), the seismic waves that travel through Earth tell us a lot about the shape and composition of Earth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwY1ICqWGEA&t=182s
"How do we have a horizon? Things disappear after a certain distance because we can only see so far."
So why is that when you go higher, you can all of a sudden see further? Why is the horizon at 3 miles when at 6 foot elevation...but get in a plane and suddenly you can see for hundreds of miles in all directions? Seems your "we only see so far" argument has some holes in it. The horizon exists because the Earth is curving away...there wouldn't be a horizon on a Flat Earth. Learn some geometry. Here's how a horizon works on a sphere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Vz9r2yWO8&t notice how flat that horizon is at the start while the camera rests on the surface of that very large sphere? The closer you are to a sphere, the flatter it will appear...it's basic geometry and perspective.
"Long story short we believe what we've been told."
You mean like the bullshit you've been told about Flat Earth, from con men online, who actually convinced scientists are lying to you? Meanwhile scientists still create EVERY technology you use today. Can you build your computer from scratch? Can any of those flat Earth "experts" harness electricity and build the electrical grids that power your house? No...but guess who can...trained and experienced experts, scientists and engineers. They're not building this technology with magic...they're using the knowledge and science we have acquired over centuries of hard work, that Flat Earth is now telling you is all lies...and for SOME REASON you are just blindly believing them without question...while meanwhile taking full advantage of that progress. :/
"A compass doesn't make sense on a globe"
Why not? Explain your reason.
"The way sun rays hit the ground wouldn't make sense on a globe"
Have you ever thought that maybe things don't make sense to you...because you're not very smart? Does that ever cross your mind?
Sun rays actually do a lot to confirm the shape of planet. Here's a few great observations and experiments that help to verify what I'm talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrsaP7nBWt0
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno?t=421
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HgFT9Yu0JY
It's actually the other way around...Sun rays when actually measured do not support the conclusion of a Flat Earth, they actually verify a Globe. As those videos help to demonstrate.
"We believe scientists because we're told their the smartest people."
We believe scientists, because their work has brought results. We don't trust conspiracy theorists, because they're paranoid bullshit doesn't produce any results...see the difference yet? You're making use of technology that only exists because of those scientists...you should be more grateful.
"A rainbow proves the dome over it."
How exactly? Provide your evidence for this claim. A rainbow is just scattered light through water droplets...that's why you only see them form after and during a rainstorm. Here's a video explaining how they form.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cVX3eq6NUQ
"All the spinning and tilting makes no sense. Why don't we feel it? If you spin around do you feel it?"
Finally, a good question of physics. We don't actually feel motion, it's a misconception of most people that we do. What we actually feel is inertia. Inertia is created by a sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion...but when it comes to motion itself, we do not actually feel that. We feel inertia. In the case of you spinning, that is a centrifugal inertia, and what matters most about this inertia, is the rate in which you rotate. You feel that inertia when you spin around really fast...because you are making many revolutions per minute (RPM's), which means your angular velocity is changing very rapidly as well...which creates more inertia. The Earth however, completes ONE rotation every 24 hours, so the rate of velocity change per second...is VERY tiny, much less then when you spin around on the spot really fast. So that's why we don't feel that Centrifugal force of Earths rotation.
That last one is a very good question that most scientists ask when they're first learning about the physics of motion. You see...if you didn't have such a hatred and distrust of science, then you'd learn these things...and then they wouldn't be a question for you anymore.
Much of your questions are simple physics questions that are easily answered...if you'd just take the time to research the physics and LEARN it first hand.
"just because they show you pictures and videos don't make it true..heard of Hollywood and fx?"
It doesn't mean they are fake either. To conclude they are fake without evidence to verify that, is called confirmation bias...and it is a fallacy of logic. We must avoid following bias at all times, it will not lead you to any real answers. Scientists know that EVERBODY has bias, they actively practice doing all that they can to remove bias from every conclusion...Flat Earth needs to learn the same, or they will continue to reach false conclusions.
3
-
Because it’s not just about distances, it’s also about what kind of traffic airports are capable of handling. Most small airports can only support international flights, to larger airports. Cape Town is a pretty tiny city, compared to New York…so its airport isn’t gonna be very good. You know planes aren’t magic…they can only operate within designated airports, but not every airport is LAX or London or New York or Hong Kong. They simply can’t handle traffic for every location around the world…certainly not smaller cities either. Make sense? The North has more land, so more cities and population, so the North has more infrastructure, so smaller airports have to reroute through larger networks that can handle the traffic. This also helps economically, as you’ll pick up more passengers in larger population centres.
So there’s logistical and economic reasons for things you have to factor here. That said, how exactly do you know for absolute certain they don’t? 🤷♂️ You could just be making that claim…or the person you heard that from did. I’ve seen a few examples from flat Earthers, where they found flights they first claimed didn’t exist, but then they denied they were real…so it’s pretty dodgy a lot of the time it seems.
I say, learn to navigate if this interests you so much. It’s an entire system built from the knowledge that Earth is spherical. So why not learn? It’s not difficult, plenty of tutorials snd lessons to be found online. Then…put it to the test, you just try navigating somewhere, and finding a direct longitude and latitude point, without using the globe model to help you do it…see how well you do.
In any case, you really should stop listening to crack pots online, with zero experience in these things. Not a single pilot or sailor uses a flat Earth model for navigation…so you know, millions of people. That’s for a good reason. But learn to navigate, go ahead, why bother with anything else when you can test it more directly for yourself?
3
-
3
-
Walt Sandford Look man, I have no trouble with people exorcising their spiritual faiths, but when faith alone gets us into space colonizing other planets, let us know. Until then, I’ll put my faith in the scientific method which has got us to where we are today, where this conversation is even possible in the first place.
I have my own spiritual beliefs I cultivate, they can be a strength like no other, but I’m not going to be naive and ignorant about things and claim that mans achievements were just handed to us out of faith. No, that’s just arrogant...we didn’t achieve everything by just hoping and praying, we achieved everything we have today by getting off our knees and making use of some of the best tools God gave us, our minds, our will and our curious creativity.
I just feel it’s arrogant to spit in the face of science...while at the same time, you’re still happy to make use of every technology that method has made possible and provided for you. I get that things are grim these days, lot of misinformation and uncertainties clouding our minds, but maybe put a bit more faith in your fellow man instead causing more rifts and we might see things improve for the better eventually.
3
-
@Globeisahoax Because to get that shot, from the angle required, would require them looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere. They’d also need a camera, capable of zooming in with such precision, that it could visualize a single person, and I’m not aware of any that are capable…especially since seeing through that much atmosphere would make it virtually impossible anyway.
So your argument is stupid Kangen, it’s ignorant to the technology and what would be required for such a shot. But let’s say they could take that picture, and so they do. So they go through all the trouble to appease just a few numpty’s online, and even after all that, even if they got you exactly what you’re asking for, you would just say it’s fake anyway….so what’s the point? 🤷♂️
They already took pictures of Earth, and they continue too still today. It’s spherical in all those photos, that’s good enough for the rest of us.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@joaopintovb Yup, because it’s testable, repeatable and it works when the knowledge is applied. That’s how you know your conclusions in science are accurate, when you can apply that knowledge, and it works, every single time. On the flip side, that’s how you spot junk science…it doesn’t work, and has zero applications. You can pretend you’re smarter than experts all you want, but they’re currently using this knowledge you feel is BS, to build every technology you use today. You should be more grateful for the work they’ve done, but instead you’re arrogant and ignorant, and take it all for granted, as if everything you have just popped into existence on its own…it’s quite sad. 😔
3
-
I think you you're just misunderstanding how gravity actually works and it's that misunderstanding that's leading you to some very false conclusions. Little hard to expand on knowledge, if you don't have the foundations correct...so have you ever considered the error isn't with the model, but really in your understanding of that model? Or do you just assume you have it correct and have never thought re-examine your current knowledge on the subject? After reading your comment here, it's pretty clear to me that you're understanding of gravity is a little flawed and that's why this doesn't make sense to you. My guess is you're the same as most Flat Earthers, thinking that gravity pulls south...and not to center, but hard to tell for sure from just this comment alone. All that's clear is that you have misunderstood gravity, I would need further context to know for sure exactly what that misunderstanding is, but it is your error here.
Planes fly what is called a great circle route, which is the shortest path between two points on a curved surface...so it's not a straight path they're flying, it's a curved path. Here's a video you might be interested in that clearly illustrates what actual flight paths look like when plotted on flat maps of Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiUklHodcho The question you should be asking yourself is, if Earth is Flat, then why are these paths curving? Why aren't they direct straight line routes? Why are planes flying these needlessly longer routes? If Earth is flat...shouldn't they just fly straight to their destination? If you watch to the end, he then places those same flight paths on a Globe, showing you what the circle routes are. Much more direct when the same paths are placed on a Globe, and it explains the curved routes...because they are flying over a curved surface. Here's another interesting video on the topic of travel distances you should take a look at. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMOp6PmDpp4
Anyway, I don't mind sharing some further insight on gravity. I do feel you're misunderstanding it a little bit and that's why you're reaching the conclusions you currently have.
3
-
Rockets actually work better in space, because there’s zero wind resistance and they’re not fighting gravity. They don’t propel forward the same way as other vehicles, cars use friction, boats propel off the water, planes use air to generate lift, all of these require a medium to move through or on...but rockets instead use the basic laws of motion, mostly the 3rd law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Do you think a gun kicks back because it’s pushing off the air? No, of course not, just like a gun firing, a rocket propels forward by the action/reaction of the gas igniting, the force generated pushing off the walls of the container it’s being ignited from and the tank then also pushes off of the ignited gas...they’re pushing off of each other, using each other to go opposite directions, action reaction...it’s basic physics of motion.
You can demonstrate the same physics with a medicine ball (or even just by simply pushing off something). Toss a medicine ball from chest level with both hands, if you don’t plant your feet, you will feel notice yourself being pushed back as you throw it, essentially pushing off the ball itself, you going one way, the ball going the other. Now pick up that ball again, but this time instead of throwing it, push it against the air as hard as you can...push all ya want, you won’t feel nearly as much counter force on your body, until you throw it.
They even burn just fine, using liquid oxidizers. Space rockets generally have a two part rocket fuel, one part gas the other part oxidizer, there are tons of different chemical combinations they can use, it’s just chemistry. Basic chemical reactions coming together to create extreme reactions.
So rockets work just fine in space, in fact they work even better, it’s basic physics of motion that makes it possible, so I hope this info helps shed some light on some details you might have missed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Not an equation or device is made still 400 years after the concept!"
Sure....except for the basic equation for calculating weight; W=mg. Or buoyancy; Fb=Vpg. Or calculating air pressure at surface; P=pgh. Or calculating a ballistic parabolic arc trajectory; y = (tan θ0)x – gx2/2(v0cosθ0)2. Or calculating a planes lift to thrust ratio; ratio=F/W=ma/mg=a/g. Notice the little 'g' in every single one of those equations? Guess what that is. It's also used in calculating an escape velocity, an orbital path, a fusion reaction, time dilation, to how much longer it will take for water to boil at certain altitudes, etc, etc, etc and on and on and on....gravity is used in quite a lot of equations within engineering, mathematics and physics.
So not sure what you're talking about....thousands of devices, some you make use of every single day, were only made possible because of our detection, measurement and understanding of gravity today. Do you have a smart phone? Guess how it knows which side is up, guess how it flips its screen. The tiny gyro within its structure is built with gravity physics...engineers could not design that clever device, without our current knowledge of gravity. That's a fact, not an opinion.
Seriously...why do people who clearly have no idea what they're talking about, love to assume they know everything...about the things they clearly don't know anything about?
You have questions, that's perfectly fine...but it's dangerous to assume, and you're sure doing a lot of it.
3
-
@multymind4744 You're asking questions, but lets be clear, questions are not evidence. You don't prove something is wrong by simply asking questions...you prove it with evidence. I'll do what I can to answer these questions, but just wanted to make that clear, you're not sharing evidence here currently, you're just asking questions...there is a distinct difference.
i) They actually do eventually travel sideways, pay attention the next time you watch a rocket launch. They will start their launch perpendicular to surface, and then they will over time fly parallel to it. They do this for the very reason you've pointed out, they use Earths gravity to help them achieve orbit, rather than fight against it constantly. It's pretty standard to rocket science and orbital mechanics, rockets do fly sideways, so look again.
ii) No, a jet uses the air pressure around it to generate both thrust and lift. A rocket does not, rockets propel forward, from the same physics that causes a gun to recoil, by Newtons third law of motion; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So a jet can not enter into space, because the higher you go, the thinner the air becomes. Since it requires air to generate thrust and lift, it can only fly so high. They're also not generating enough velocity for an escape velocity, only a rocket can achieve that kind of velocity. Jets are not rockets, they use engines that take in air, just like aeroplanes do, just at a much higher rate. Rockets also fly in much thinner atmosphere, so higher velocities can be achieved, because they're not experiencing as much drag force...nowhere near as much in fact.
iii) The force we would feel is a centrifugal force, but our Earth does not generate a very powerful centrifugal force. You can deduce this yourself, by going a bit deeper into the physics of centrifugal force. First of all, 1000 mph is a linear velocity...we do not measure rotational motion with linear velocities, we use rotational units, like revolutions per minute (RPM's). Earth rotates at the rate of 1 complete rotation, every 24 hours. That's about 0.000694 RPM's. For a comparison, the Gravitron ride at your local fair, rotates at about 25 RPM's, hence why you feel a great deal of centrifugal force on that ride. It's the rate of angular velocity change per second, that increases centrifugal force output...not the linear velocity. Linear velocities have pretty much nothing to do with centrifugal force.
You can test that with this simple thought experiment. Imagine yourself driving in a race car, at a steady linear velocity of 200 mph, around a perfect circle track, that's only 1000 meters in circumference. Would you expect to feel any centrifugal force in this example? Yes, absolutely, there would be so much, you'd barely be able to stay on the track! Now imagine yourself in that same car, moving at the exact same 200 mph, only this time the track is a perfect circle that's 1000 miles in circumference. Would you expect to feel any centrifugal force in this example? No, in fact the track would be arcing so gradually relative to you, it would likely feel like you were driving down a perfectly straight road.
So what changed? It wasn't the linear velocity, speed was the exact same in both examples...but one would obviously have more centrifugal force than the other, right? So what's the difference? The difference is the rate at which you're completing a complete revolution. In the first example, you'd be completing several laps around the track in a single minute. In the second, you would complete 1 lap, every 5 hours. See the difference? It's not linear velocities like miles per hour that you should be focusing on, its the rate of rotation. Earths rate of rotation, is VERY slow, 1 complete rotation every 24 hours.
So that's why we don't feel anything, rate of rotation is actually far to slow to notice. The other part of this, is that we don't actually feel motion itself, what we feel is sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. That's what we feel. 1000 mph may sound impressive, but you know a passenger jet fly's at roughly 500 mph cruising speed, and people can still get up and walk around the cabin of a plane just fine, even at that velocity. We do not feel speed, we feel CHANGES in speed, that's key to understanding why we don't feel any of the motions of Earth.
For your last part, there's actually a great Minute Physics video on that very topic, so I'll just share that. https://youtu.be/urQCmMiHKQk
Apologies if this comes off as condescending, but you're telling me you understand physics...but then you're demonstrating the complete opposite. It seems to me you skipped the basics of physics, cause you don't seem to have a very firm grasp on the physics of motion and what we physically perceive. That's physics 101 stuff...that's some of the first lessons you learn in any physics 101 class, the laws of motion. Centrifugal forces are a bit more advanced, but it's still pretty basic stuff in the grand scheme of things.
That's my problem with FE and those who push it. They tell me all the time they understand physics, that they have a firm gasp on the subject....yet I always have to repeat such basic physics to them. Your questions always seem to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding in basic physics...which just tells me that you don't really understand physics very well. Which is largely your problem...take a physics class, or brush up on the basics here on YouTube, then you probably wouldn't be asking these questions. It just feels like everyone in FE skipped physics 101 and went straight into General Relativity...and I just find that, odd. No wonder you have so many questions, you seem to have skipped over a HUGE portion of the physics that helps you answer those questions.
3
-
3
-
Point of this video wasn’t to delve deep into the science, it was just to discuss the ideology. The topic of this video is asking WHY people come to believe FE. Most people with a basic education can understand for themselves, why the level on a plane experiment is a bad experiment. He shared that example specifically, because it’s in obvious error, but if you can’t see that error, then that’s part of why people come to believe Flat Earth.
He was demonstrating that part of the reason why people become flat Earthers, is because of their own lack of knowledge and experience, their own misunderstandings. They don’t understand how a bubble level is subject to gravity and always maintains level to centre of gravity, so without this knowledge they jump to an erroneous conclusion, from their own misunderstandings.
So it serves the purpose of the video. Both experiments are flawed, but Flat Earthers can’t see why or how…that’s part of why they become Flat Earthers. Get it now? I do agree a little though, he could have provided a few more details, just to help anyone who might still be confused…not everyone is great at retaining science they learned back in school, doesn’t mean they can’t still learn and understand it. So he probably should have provided just a little more information, you’re right.
But this isn’t a science channel, so that’s not really what he does here. If you want a few more details, I don’t mind sharing some info though.
3
-
@danielzhivkov1187 Both experiments he shared are examples of an inconclusive experiment. The first one ignores gravity physics, the bubble would remain flat on both models, so it’s not a good experiment, it’s inconclusive. The second one is a good experiment, just done poorly. The original experiment didn’t do enough to reach a conclusive result, it ignored variables like refraction and height of the observer, and didn’t take enough data. Used only one marker, over one observation...it basically only went so far as to confirm a bias conclusion, and then he stopped experimenting. Making it an example of confirmation bias and inconclusive. This experiment has been repeated many times over the last couple centuries, here’s a modern recreation http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment. This is far more conclusive, verifying that Earth is curving and at the rate it should be.
The purpose of this video wasn’t to prove or disprove FE, it was to discuss why people come to believe FE. Bad experiments with inconclusive results, are an example of how people become flat Earthers. You didn’t recognize how those experiments are inconclusive...guess how many flat Earthers didn’t either? That’s part of how they fell into this mess...hence why he shared those two experiments.
I’ll admit, he could have done more to explain the experiments better, he did gloss over them a bit much, seems to have led to a bit of frustration. Hope I was able to help provide a little more info.
3
-
Anyone can prove the Earth is a sphere...observe any sunset, then just try your damnedest to make sense of that on a Flat Earth. Or talk to a pilot or sailor sometime, and ask them what model they use to navigate around the world successfully...spoilers, it's not a flat Earth model. So we're talking millions of people, who find their destinations every single day, using a Globe model mapped with TWO equal hemispheres in 3D. Should be pretty common sense, but it's a little hard to find a destination if you don't have an accurate map...these people would be fucked if they didn't know the true shape of the planet they navigate. Or travel to the Southern hemisphere sometime and observe the different night sky and the second rotation of stars around their own pole star, Sigma Octantis...then try and make sense of that on flat Earth.
Stop letting huxters on the internet fill your head with bullshit...scientists and experts have ZERO reason to lie to you about this, but con men selling t-shirts, documentaries, con tickets, and collecting ad revenue from watches on YouTube, have a lot to gain by suckering you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The point of this video was not to prove or disprove anything, this is not a science channel, so he’s not going to discuss the science here. All he was doing here was offering his opinion on a group mindset, looking at it from a psychological and philosophical point of view. But, just like the Bedford level experiment, the level on a plane experiment is inconclusive, because it completely ignores gravity physics. This is an example of a bad experiment, using these tools and that set up, there is no way to reach a conclusive result for either model. So it’s just a bad experiment, that demonstrates a lack of knowledge of basic gravity physics.
The reason he shared both experiments in his presentation though, was to illustrate the kinds of people we’re dealing with in FE. These are experiments that FE actually believe supports their conclusions, but even a basic understanding of physics and the scientific method, reveals how poor these experiments are. It means the people in FE are not very scientifically literate, because these are both clear examples of inconclusive experimentation, yet they use them in their arguments anyway.
So since this was a video discussing the thought processes of this particular group of people, it was good to share some examples of their scientific capabilities...which by those examples, proves that they’re extremely lacking.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Alright, I’ll bite.
1) Evidence to what end? That it’s well documented people figured out the Earth’s geometry hundreds to even thousands of years ago, or that this history is not proof in and of itself, that Earth is a globe? I assume you mean the latter, because the former (that being the history of events), can be verified with citations and sources documenting those past events. But to the latter I agree, just because there is hundreds of years of documentation verifying that science had largely concluded the heliocentric model as accurate, is in no way evidence that they’re correct in that conclusion.
I see that argument from flat Earth all the time as well, and it irritates me to no end, stating that flat Earth is true, simply because ancient cultures like the Egyptians and Mayans believed the Earth was flat thousands of years ago, so it must be true. It’s just frustrating, because...no, history of a belief existing, is not evidence for that conclusions scientific accuracy. So depending on the context of your point, I’d agree. That being said, experiments and methods of observation were also documented in history, and many of them still hold true today. So there’s tons of easily repeatable experiments and evidence, documented through history.
2) Two things, this video was not intended to prove anything, and this is not a science channel. You’re not likely to see him ever conducting experiments with any level of thorough examination, because that’s not what he does here on this channel, so you shouldn’t expect he would.
This video was more intended as a psychological examination, of a group of people and why they believe what they believe. It’s an opinion piece, that’s all. He was conducting that experiment on the plane mostly as a joke, for entertainments sake. Most people can understand pretty quickly why the spirit level on a plane experiment is inconclusive, with just a basic understanding of physics, so that’s why it’s funny...it’s a small poke at Flat Earthers who don’t seem to understand why it’s inconclusive. It’s relevant to his point as well, it illustrates what we’re dealing with here, a group of extremely stubborn people, reaching a great many false conclusions, from there own personal lack of knowledge, experience, and understandings. They’re reaching full conclusions, from inconclusive experiments without realizing it, that was the main point.
The trouble is that many in FE do look at that experiment and think it’s a perfectly good experiment...in reality it’s inconclusive, it is ignoring the model it’s setting out to falsify, namely the physics of gravity. Denial is not science, it’s that simple...they can’t just ignore the physics that is occurring to make that bubble centre itself, then conclude Earth is flat, that’s not how it works. It’s a bad experiment, designed only to confirm bias, ignorant of the model it’s refuting. Conducted as it is, it will always be inconclusive, because it’s ignoring gravity physics entirely.
This is apparent to many people right away, so for the audience he was likely targeting, there was no need to explain it further. We already get it, explaining it further would just waste time in his examination, and cause the video to drag. YouTubers are in the business of clicks and retention time, and keeping their subscribers interested, that often requires sacrificing details, in favour of what has more entertainment value. This channel is mostly just for quick facts and tidbits of information that some might find interesting...it’s not a physics or science channel dedicated to explaining and demonstrating the laws of gravity to people, so it’s not going to ever do that.
So I hope that helps answer your questions a bit. If you’d like a more in depth explanation for why that experiment or the Bedford Level experiment are inconclusive, feel free to ask, I could shed a bit more light on that as well.
3
-
It was a sloppy experiment that ignored variables important to the observation. He basically only did as much as he needed to confirm his bias, and then he stopped looking…that’s just confirmation bias, science has to do better. Upon peer review (which is why science conducts peer review, to catch errors and weed out liars like Rowbotham), it was found his experiment was very poorly done, ignored variables like refraction, used the wrong math, didn’t take enough data sets, had basically no controls, etc. So it was extremely inconclusive, making it pretty much useless.
It was a good idea for an experiment however, so it has been properly repeated many times now, every proper recreation actually in support of the globe. Here’s a good example of one such recreation of the experiment https://youtu.be/a79KGx2Gtto. That is how thorough science needs to be, in order to render a more conclusive and objective results. Rowbotham pretty much just took one observation, then called it a day. Very sloppy science.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@alex-bohorquez-jimenez Here’s a question, if you don’t trust any space agency, then why bother asking for photographs from these organizations at all? If every photo I or anyone could ever show you, is just brushed off as fake, then why bother asking? You’re just going to conclude every photo is fake, before putting in any work proving that they are, simply because you don’t trust the source. So don’t you think it’s kind of pointless to ask? 🤷♂️
I could have pointed you towards the millions of photos taken by geostationary weather satellites in orbit currently, but I figured you’d prefer photos taken before CGI was even possible, because I know you’d just say they were CGI if I showed you anything more recent. Apollo was one of several examples of Earth photographed on regular film, long before CGI, so I figured you’d find them to be more credible.
You asked for photos, so I pointed you to where you could find some, that’s all. Why bother asking if you’ve already concluded they’re all fake, or if you’re not even gonna look? I’ve always found that odd behaviour from those arguing for FE.
3
-
@dtraub1 They do sloppy demonstrations, not really experiments, mostly tricks with distorted glass, that are not to scale and don't actually replicate the real world. What they're doing is creating demonstrations that replicate what they WANT to be true, and then once they get what they're looking for they stop and then tell the world "this is what's happening"...that's not how an experiment works. A true experiment has to correlate with reality. You have to go out and actually see if reality itself works the same way.
So it's a trick really, they trick people with these demonstrations (and I think they trick themselves as well). What sux is that it works, because people are bias and are only looking for ways to confirm their bias. Once they see a magic demonstration that supports their bias, they accept it with open arms and stop looking closer. That's the real problem with Flat Earth...as I'm sure you're aware by now, it is rampant with confirmation bias.
I've seen those demonstrations as well, one in particular was very convincing at the time I first saw it, one done by a Karen B, a prominent Flat Earther in the scene. She did a demonstration with a thick piece of distorted glass where she made a candle set on her coffee table.
It's convincing when you first look at it...but hold on, where are the details to the experiment? What glass did she use, what are its specs? How far away did she place the camera, how high and at what angle? How far away was the candle and how tall was it? The glass appeared to be designed to refract images downward, but in the real world we know refraction to make distant objects to rise up, not down.
She essentially shared ZERO of those details, which makes her "experiment" more akin to smoke and mirrors. A magic trick to fool a person at a glance and make them think this is actually possible.
Aside from that, the experiments are also never to scale...and do not match with their "models". Even Flat Earthers believe the Sun to be thousands of miles up and at least 70 miles in diameter...this matters. And it's very convenient to me how they'll deny refraction one minute with long distance photography, saying it doesn't needed to be included in the math...and then they'll do demonstrations that are basically refracted light through a distorted glass pain...that are designed to refract light the way they want to get the results they are looking for.
They are con men...not scientists, not experts and they're not doing actual experiments. They're JUST doing bias research, experiments designed to get the results they are looking for and then they just assert "this is how it works"...without doing any further work to fit it into their model or to actually test ACTUAL reality under the same conditions.
The trouble is, it's not simple to point these details out to a person, who just checks out after the first sentence. To point out the flaws of their perspective argument, at the deeper levels, requires some effort and explanation, there really is no simple way to cut through it I'm afraid, you have to really get down to the meat of it...most Flat Earthers will not listen to that explanation.
In the end though, when you really look at the details and think about them longer then any Flat Earther is willing to do (because they stop thinking the moment they get what they're looking for), it becomes pretty clear that they're bullshitting and a sunset still remains one of many of their biggest problems...it does not work. The Sun would not set on a Flat Earth.
Best you can do I'm afraid is just point out the errors, keep asking the questions they refused to ask while conducting their experiments. Just keep reminding them that they have to do more...a LOT more and not just stop once they've confirmed their bias.
3
-
@dtraub1 Yes, a lot of them do believe every word that they're saying, I'd say a majority even. But they are bullshitting, not just to us, but to themselves as well and that's more the problem. I think they're currently demonstrating the power of confirmation bias...they're so deep in it, that they don't realize it's happening to them. This is exactly what science has worked so hard to overcome, it's a flaw of mankind, to chase bread crumbs that aren't really there...because we get excited when we think we're onto something big, which makes us over confident. That's exactly why science developed the peer review system, to help weed out that over confidence. A person doesn't really like seeing their failures, but our peers sure do...we love tearing each other down, this actually works pretty well countering confirmation bias, but Flat Earth has zero oversight like this, so that's why it's spreading like a wild fire among the under educated, not properly trained in the full scientific method.
So I agree, in my experience most of them 100% believe these demonstrations of theirs are real science, that they are perfectly valid and don't require any further analysis. It's that blind confidence that has helped this movement spread so rampant, people are easily roped in by that confidence...even by themselves. People will rationalize just about anything to themselves when they don't know any better...if they'd just slow that excitement even just a little and take the time to listen when people point out their errors, maybe they'd finally realize how they've joined in on the con, but I think their drunk on the power it gives them believing their actually onto this big secret.
Anyway, I wish I could tell ya how to slow them down to help them see where they went wrong, but most of them are just too far gone. Once they're on forums like this spreading the same misinformation, it's pretty much to late for them, they've swallowed that pill and now think they're a bunch of Neo's. It's a mental health problem more then anything, not easy at all to snap people out of a delusion that makes them feel like they finally have some control over everything. I'd say it's harmless, but it's not really...if kids start believing this shit, then we're going to have fewer scientists and experts in the future, which essentially cripples our ability to advance further. So I suppose that's why I keep commenting, just trying to be a voice of reason, I find treating them civil is the best way to reach them, telling them what they're doing right and then critique their errors, people are more open to hearing you out if you treat them with respect...as hard as that can be sometimes, it's really the only way to get through to em I've found. Shouting down at them just makes them double down...though some of them really don't deserve anything less.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@OlamideAdelaNCC Ok, but you're just stating the obvious and it's just empty rhetoric for the most part. It goes without saying, there's still a lot to learn, it does not really bare repeating. The point still stands, we can only reach conclusions on evidence, we should not conclude anything on belief alone. The Globe model is not difficult to deduce, not anymore it isn't, there's far too much evidence, it's applied science now.
Just sayin, you can learn how we know things, or you can remain ignorant...the latter is not very useful.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@yestervue4697 1) Of course not, I just prefer not to think in absolutes. Just because someone lies often, does not mean they lie ALL the time, thinking in absolutes like that, will only lead you towards further bias. In science, to remain truly objective, you have to put more value on the information, rather than the source. This of course requires more time, and it’s more difficult to do, but I feel it’s the better way to think and reason. Yes, governments lie...but you lean too much into that paranoia and let it get the better of you, and you’ll become more prone to following bias and speculations, over evidence and objective reason.
2) Are you referring to this video, or something you shared? Yes to both, I watched the video (several times actually) and I checked your links, but if I missed something, feel free to let me know.
I agree actually, it used to be a lot easier to have a civil conversation a few years ago. That being said, I do find that’s generally still the case with in person conversations. I think we’ve all just been spending more time online, and it’s easier to be harsher when you can’t see the person you’re talking to. But since we’re having these chats more and more online, rather than in person, I think it’s skewing our reality. Spend a lot of time online arguing, it’s going to have a psychological effect, where you start to think that’s how it is in general. But I don’t think it is, I still find conversation in person to be far more pleasant, though I’m sure even that varies depending on where you are. Perhaps we all need to less screen time...it’s just difficult, as it’s a highly addictive platform. But I’d be willing to bet, spend far less time online, you’ll probably find the world a little less insufferable.
I looked at your images, my position is still the same. We’re discussing the basic geometry of the surface in this argument...so it’s physical reality, which falls under science. So scientific evidence will hold the most weight in this particular discussion. You’re not going to change anybody’s mind, with scripture and ancient drawings...we want tangible evidence. You started with an observation of the Moon, that was a good observation, which is why I decided to interact with you, it had some scientific grounds that I felt could be interesting to discuss. I fired shots though and I apologize for that, but I did have a point, you were missing proof for your claims, that was my only gripe at that time.
But yes, sorry it couldn’t be more productive, but I’m afraid I am only really interested in scientific evidence, not so much past relics. So if you’d not to interested in discussing science, then I suppose we’ll leave it at that. Take care out there, though I disagree with your conclusion, I do respect it.
3
-
3